Open Stack

Agreed. It causes two problems:

1) 9 month delays in getting code into a release
2) Some projects consider something to be breakable, from a back
compatibility point of view, until it has made a formal release, which
means anybody cutting releases from anything other than final/stable is
facing the possibility of tenant facing API breakage. The attitude to this
seems to differ between projects and indeed PTLs within the same project,
but is quite worrying for distributors who want to release something more
cutting edge than final/stable.

Is there any evidence that our long freeze significantly increases
stability or indeed testing? Or do people just start working on their
features for the next release?

On 23 February 2015 at 22:45, Dan Smith <dms at danplanet.com> wrote:

> > Seriously, what is the point of 6-month releases again? We are a
> > free-form open source set of projects, with a lot of intelligent
> > engineers. Why are we stuck using an outdated release model?
>
> I've been wondering this myself for quite a while now. I'm really
> interested to hear what things would look like in a no-release model.
> I'm sure it would be initially met with a lot of resistance, but I think
> that in the end, it makes more sense to move to that sort of model and
> let vendors/deployers more flexibly decide when to roll out new stuff
> based on what has changed and what they value.
>
> --Dan
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Duncan Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150224/a0024315/attachment.html>